Cont: UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[wollery]

So, it would seem that the only hope that any hypothetical physical alien UFO evidence has of being properly identified is if it fortunate enough to be found, retained, and analyzed by skeptics?

Reputable scientists publishing in a reputable journal would be preferable.

 

[mike3]

Reputable scientists publishing in a reputable journal would be preferable.

But if a real piece of a UFO did exist, it would most likely not be found by such a person. So what would happen then?

 

[mike3]

Those or any number of other more likely explanations than Witches/Alien/Angels/Fairies dropping it? For all you know the guy may have just asked a friend of a friend to mail order it for him, or picked it off a scrap heap.

The only evidence you have for it being from a UFO is some guy on the internet. Not a great evidence base, because no chain of custody or provedence can be claimed. We have no reason to suspect exotic origin if mundane origins can not be discounted.

So as Arktan said, "No".

And in this case it's not even just that mundane origins cannot be discounted, rather the shape of the object actually seems to rule them in, i.e. there's actual positive evidence for a mundane origin, not merely a lack of evidence for an exotic origin.

 

[wollery]

But if a real piece of a UFO did exist, it would most likely not be found by such a person. So what would happen then?

I would hope it would be passed to them for analysis, otherwise, how could anyone be sure that it was a genuine piece of alien technology?

Without proper scientific scrutiny the evidence is untrustworthy.

 

[mike3]

I would hope it would be passed to them for analysis, otherwise, how could anyone be sure that it was a genuine piece of alien technology?

Without proper scientific scrutiny the evidence is untrustworthy.

Yes, they could submit the piece to a U or something.

 

[OCaptain]

I would hope it would be passed to them for analysis, otherwise, how could anyone be sure that it was a genuine piece of alien technology?

Without proper scientific scrutiny the evidence is untrustworthy.

If an alleged piece of alien technology were to be turned in for study to reputable scientists (whether it be an i-beam or brain implant), one might expect it to demonstrate some qualities that make classification difficult if not impossible, correct?

In that instance, an unbroken and documentable chain of custody is not a make-or-break to determine whether or not the artifact is non-classifiable, is it?

 

[John Albert]

Have any of you guys ever read Stanislaw Lem?

 

[wollery]

If an alleged piece of alien technology were to be turned in for study to reputable scientists (whether it be an i-beam or brain implant), one might expect it to demonstrate some qualities that make classification difficult if not impossible, correct?

I would expect it to exhibit technology far in advance of anything currently available to humanity. It may well be classifiable, and even possibly reproducible (with effort), but something significantly beyond current knowledge or manufacturing capability.

In that instance, an unbroken and documentable chain of custody is not a make-or-break to determine whether or not the artifact is non-classifiable, is it?

I think what you're saying is that if it was so far beyond what we could produce then it wouldn't matter how it came into the hands of the scientists, it should be self evident from its qualities that it is non-human in origin. I agree, I don't think that an unbroken chain of custody would make any difference.

 

[Spektator]

It's been a long time for any activity on this thread, but the Daily Mail sez Canadian UFO sightings are bustin' all records.

Oooh, I just know we're going to get some UFO research and evidence just any day now.

 

[Astrophotographer]

This is based on a Canadian ufo group's summary of their 2011 results. Important points from these results. Only about 11% were unexplained. When one looked at the best unexplained cases, they amounted to less than 1%. Those cases weren't that good either IMO. The bottom line - more of the same. Lots of questions but no evidence. Yawn....

 

[ufology]

This is based on a Canadian ufo group's summary of their 2011 results. Important points from these results. Only about 11% were unexplained. When one looked at the best unexplained cases, they amounted to less than 1%. Those cases weren't that good either IMO. The bottom line - more of the same. Lots of questions but no evidence. Yawn....

Sighting reports are evidence, just not sufficient evidence for you.

 

[ufology]

Reputable scientists publishing in a reputable journal would be preferable.

Agreed. If some material evidence were discovered, it would be preferable to alert independent reputable scientists to pick it up and do the analysis. Once it is complete it would also help for the results to be published in the mainstream science media.

 

[Paul2]

Sighting reports are evidence, just not sufficient evidence for you.

Why should sighting reports be sufficient evidence for anyone?

 

[AdMan]

Agreed. If some material evidence were discovered, it would be preferable to alert independent reputable scientists to pick it up and do the analysis. Once it is complete it would also help for the results to be published in the mainstream science media.

This obvious point is worth resurrecting the thread for?

Do you have some new information to bring to the table?

 

[Resume]

Sighting reports are evidence, just not sufficient evidence for you.

Those are claims.

 

[Akhenaten]

Sighting reports are evidence, just not sufficient evidence for you.

Sighting reports are evidence of people claiming to have seen things.

About as useful as a cow upstairs, in other words.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Sighting reports are evidence, just not sufficient evidence for you.

Are the sighting evidence for the Lock Ness monster, ghosts, big foot, chupacabra, demons, angels, or Elvis sufficient for you?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Sighting reports are evidence, just not sufficient evidence for you.

Ok, if you want to call it "evidence", we can do that. I consider these reports unverifiable data that is highly subjective. People can say they saw something and never saw anything at all. Maybe they did see something but their reports are modifiied by a will to believe in alien spaceships. The reports can be distorted to the point of no identification at all. If it is evidence, it is the worst possible evidence one can put forth. Of course, that is what this thread has shown since it was created.

 

[ufology]

Why should sighting reports be sufficient evidence for anyone?

Q. Why should sighting reports be sufficient evidence for anyone?

A. Because sighting reports have the potential to be as sufficient or better than any other evidence. Why? For sighting reports, the principle is that when people report seeing something ( anything ), and subsequent investigations don't turn up an indication of a hoax or deception, and some instances include collaborating reports from independent witnesses and/or mechanical sensors ( photos, radar, whatever ), investigators tend to believe that it is reasonable to take the reports seriously, and as the numbers of such incidents grow, it becomes a virtual statistical certainty that things are being seen, and that they are probably close to being as described.

I'll grant that statistical probability isn't the same as other evidence, but what is forgotten by those seeking other evidence, is that there is a margin of error in the gathering and analysis of evidence of any kind ( including material evidence ). So where we have identical margins of error, there isn't any logical reason to say that one form of evidence is any less or more "sufficient" than the other.

 

[ufology]

Are the sighting evidence for the Lock Ness monster, ghosts, big foot, chupacabra, demons, angels, or Elvis sufficient for you?

They are sufficient for me to believe that people have seen something they associate with those things, but insufficient for me to draw any conclusions about exactly what it was they saw.